Why has NOT one member of the Ontario Legislature been held accountable for Breach of Trust

Hitch v. Clarkson Co. Ltd., 1981 CanLII 2914 (ON SC)

In 1981 all members of the Ontario Provincial Legislature, without exception, voted to frustrate the laws of the Dominion by pre-empting and interfering with the administration of justice in their direct attempt to supplement independently the enforcement provisions of federal laws of federal insolvency legislation and the enforcement of federal criminal legislation.

By so doing they criminally and knowingly conspired to ignore the Constitutional and Charter Rights of an Individual Canadian born citizen by illegally passing a law to freeze one's assets and property rights. Further, they all committed a Criminal Breach of Trust #IMHOPEOPLE and as supported by the decisions of the Ontario High Court of Justice at the time. (Copy below)

As the only true nature and character of the Act was NOT legislation of general application as agreed to by Justice Callaghan J. The law was found to be ultra vires.

Further, these elected representatives of the public from all political parties failed in their elected individual duties and obligations to NOT vote for legislation that they should have known was unconstitutional. Ignorance of the law is not a defence on any of their parts or that of their respective party leaders.

As of today NOT a single member of that legislative body of 1981 has been charged or held accountable for such contempt of democracy; the laws and human rights abuses and Breach of Trust against a fellow citizen let alone apologized!

Shameful……..

NOTE: The offence of breach of trust by a public officer is established where the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt that:  (1) the accused is an official; (2) the accused was acting in connection with the duties of his or her office; (3) the accused breached the standard of responsibility and conduct demanded of him or her by the nature of the office; (4) the accused’s conduct represented a serious and a marked departure from the standards expected of an individual in the accused’s position of public trust; and (5) the accused acted with the intention to use his or her public office for a purpose other than the public good, for example,  a dishonest, partial, corrupt, or oppressive purpose. [58]

 Ontario High Court of Justice

Citation: Hitch v. Clarkson Co. Ltd.

Date: 1981-10-16*

Callaghan J.

Counsel:

Ian G. Scott, Q.C., Peter W. Hogg, Q.C., and Ian J. Roland, for applicants.

D. J. M. Brown, for respondents, Clarkson Company Limited and McMillan, Binch.

John L. Ronson, for respondents, David L. Richardson and Peter F. M. Jones.

Anne M. Molloy, for respondent, Montreal Trust Company of Canada.

Lorraine E. Weinrib, for intervenant, Attorney-General of Ontario.

[1]                     CALLAGHAN J. (orally):—This is an application pursuant to leave granted under Rule 124 for a determination of the following question:

Is The Co-operative Health Services of Ontario Assets Protection Act, 1981 within the legislative jurisdiction of the Province of Ontario or in the alternative is it rendered inoperative by the terms of the Winding-Up Act, R.S.C. 1970, Chap. W-10?

[2]                     This application arises in the following circumstances, which for the purposes of these proceedings are undisputed. Co-operative Health Services of Ontario (Co-op) is a co-operative corporation under the provisions of the Co-operative Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 91, created by letters of amalgamation dated October 2, 1969.

[3]                     The applicant Clarke was at all material times the general manager of Co-op and the applicant Hitch was a barrister and solicitor practising law in the City of North York, in the Province of Ontario.

[4]                     The applicants purchased premises in the City of North York, at 20 Finch Ave. W., 277 Duplex Ave., and 279 Duplex Ave., on April 6, 1979, and June 13, 1979, respectively. Title to both properties was taken in the name of the applicant W. Ross Hitch "in trust". By an agreement dated January 28, 1981, Hitch in trust agreed to sell the lands and premises to 462333 Ontario Limited. This transaction was stipulated to close on February 27, 1981.

[5]                     On February 20, 1981, by order of the Supreme Court of Ontario leave was granted nunc pro tunc to the Clarkson Company Limited (Clarkson) to execute a petition for an order declaring the insolvency of Co-op and ordering its winding-up. The petition was granted and Clarkson was appointed as liquidator of Co-op pursuant to the provisions of the Winding-up Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. W-10. Since the date of its appointment, Clarkson has acted as liquidator of Co-op pursuant to the provisions of the Winding-up Act and as such has initiated and participated in various trial proceedings all pursuant to the provisions of that Act. In February of 1981, Clarkson, as liquidator, claimed an interest in the lands hereinbefore referred to. It also claimed an interest in the profits from the sale thereof and subsequently commenced various proceedings in the Supreme Court of Ontario to enforce that claim pursuant to leave granted under the Winding-up Act.

[6]                     On April 6, 1981, Clarkson, as liquidator of Co-op, obtained an ex parte order from the Master of this Court under the Winding-up Act empowering Clarkson, inter alia:

to compromise all calls and liabilities to calls, debts and liabilities capable of resulting in debts and all claims, demands and matters in dispute in any way relating to or affecting the assets of the company or the winding-up of the Company, upon receipt of such sums, payable at such times, and generally upon such terms, as are agreed upon, without further notice and without further application to or approval of the court,

and

to institute or defend any action, suit or prosecution or other legal proceeding, both civil and criminal, in its own name as Liquidator or in the name or on behalf of the company, as the case may be, without further notice and without further application to or approval of the Court.

[7]                     Clarkson brought interlocutory motions to restrain the disposition of the land or the proceeds from the sale of the land in which it claimed an interest.

[8]                     This litigation led to discussions between the solicitor for Clarkson and the solicitor for the applicants herein, with regard to the agreement of purchase and sale of the said premises and a possible settlement of the issues in dispute in the proceedings instituted in this Court. A formal agreement in writing between Clarkson, as liquidator of Co-op, Hitch in trust and the Montreal Trust Company of Canada (Montreal Trust) dated May 21, 1981, was entered into (the Agreement). The Agreement provided, inter alia:

1. Payment of Proceeds of Sale. If the sale of the Lands to 462333 Ontario Limited is completed, the proceeds of such sale, including interest accrued on such proceeds, net of:

(a) the amount required to discharge all mortgages affecting the Lands including, without limitation, mortgages assigned to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce;

(b) real estate commission payable in connection with the sale transaction; and

(c) adjustments for realty taxes, rent and utilities shall be paid as follows:

(i) $50,000 to Hitch in Trust or as he may direct to be dealt with in his sole discretion, free of any claim by the Liquidator with respect to Hitch in Trust for an accounting or otherwise;

(ii) the remainder to the Trustee, to be invested by the Trustee in renewable 30-day term deposits, which remainder and the interest accrued thereon are hereinafter referred to as the "Balance".

2. Trust. The Liquidator and Hitch in Trust confirm that the Balance will be held by the Trustee in trust for the Liquidator and Hitch in Trust;

(a) until the final disposition of interlocutory motions in Actions Nos. 3762/81, Whitby, and 4704/81, Toronto, currently brought by the Liquidator and at present returnable May 19, 1981, to restrain W. Ross Hitch and Peter R. Clarke from disbursing the Balance until final judgment in or other final disposition of the hereinbefore recited actions; and

(b) if such interlocutory motions brought by the Liquidator are successful, until a final judgment in or other final disposition of such actions declaring the respective entitlements of the Liquidator and Hitch in Trust to the Balance or until further order of the Court.

3. Payment without Prejudice. Payment of the Balance to Hitch in Trust under paragraph 2(a) (which shall be made unless paragraph 2(b) applies), shall be without prejudice to the Liquidator's rights to demand an accounting with respect to the Balance and if any final judgment or other final disposition so provides, to demand and receive payment to it of the Balance so paid to Hitch in Trust.

4. Payment by Trust of Balance. The Trustee shall release the Balance in accordance with the joint written direction of the Liquidator (or its counsel, McMillan, Binch) and Hitch in Trust (or his counsel, Cassels, Brock) and the parties will execute, or will cause their respective counsel to execute, such direction expeditiously to give effect to paragraph 2.

[9]                     On May 21, 1981, the sale referred to closed and on the basis of the above-mentioned agreement the mortgages were discharged and the net proceeds of the sale, $378,200, were paid to Montreal Trust pursuant to its terms.

[10]                  The interlocutory motions were terminated on June 8, 1981, by a decision of this Court. An application for leave to appeal was dismissed on June 11, 1981. These motions, it is agreed, were the interlocutory proceedings and motions referred to in the Agreement and had all been finally resolved pursuant to the provisions of that Agreement as of June 11th.

[11]                  On June 15, 1981, the solicitors for Clarkson wrote to the solicitors for the applicants in the following terms:

Dear Sirs:

In view of the disposition of the motion for leave to appeal, would you kindly advise what arrangements you wish to make for the disbursal of the funds held by Montreal Trust.

We would also refer you to paragraph 13 of the Affidavit of Mr. Clarke dated May 15th, 1981, in action No. 4704/81. Would you kindly indicate what arrangements you wish to make for the payment of the Patterson notes in the amount of $93,403.00 and $50,000.00 respectively. Perhaps a Direction to Montreal Trust would be the most convenient method of finalizing such arrangement. In return, Clarksons' would endorse the notes to Mr. Clarke without recourse.

We look forward to hearing from you.

[12]                  On June 17, 1981, the Legislature of the Province of Ontario enacted the Co-operative Health Services of Ontario Assets Protection Act, 1981 (Ont.), c. 7. On July 13, 1981, Clarkson executed the direction to Montreal Trust referred to in the Agreement. On July 14, 1981, upon presentation of the direction executed by Clarkson as liquidator and by the solicitors for the applicants, Montreal Trust refused to pay over the proceeds with the advice that it was unable to distribute or release the funds except as permitted by the terms of the Act. These funds have not been released to date. The liquidator states that the enactment of the Act frustrates its ability to perform its obligations under the aforementioned Agreement.

[13]                  In the present action the applicants seek a declaration that the Act is ultra vires the Legislature of Ontario and damages againstClarkson for breach of contract, i.e., the Agreement. The applicant also claims damages against all defendants, except Montreal Trust for conspiracy to injure.

[14]                  The defendants plead that the Act frustrated Clarkson's obligations under the Agreement and deny the conspiracy. The Montreal Trust in a separate pleading awaits direction of this Court as to its obligations with respect to the funds held by it. Concurrent with this action, Clarkson as liquidator of the estate, has initiated another action in the Supreme Court of Ontario against the applicants as defendants to determine entitlement to the trust fund which is the subject of the Agreement.

[15]                  The Act itself provides as follows:

An Act respecting

Certain Potential Assets of Co-operative

Health Services of Ontario

HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows:

1. In this Act, "trust property" means the funds in the possession of Montreal Trust Company of Canada on the 17th day of June, 1981, and any interest thereon, from the sale of the lands known municipally as 20 Finch Avenue West and 277 and 279 Duplex Avenue, all in the City of North York, in The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, sold by W. Ross Hitch, in Trust, to 462333 Ontario Limited.

2. Notwithstanding the decision of any court, the trust property shall be held by Montreal Trust Company of Canada, as trustee, or by such other trustee as may be named by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, until such time as The Clarkson Company Limited applies to the Supreme Court of Ontario for discharge as liquidator of the estate and effects of Co-operative Health Services of Ontario.

3. The trustee shall not distribute or, except for the purposes of transferring the trust property to a trustee appointed under clause a of section 4, release the trust property until The Clarkson Company Limited makes the application referred to in section 2.

4. The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by order,

(а) name a person to act as trustee of the trust property and, where a person is so named, the trustee, as of the day of the order, shall take all steps necessary to transfer the trust property to the new trustee; and

(b) prescribe one or more classes of investments that may be made by the trustee with respect to the trust property and fix the compensation of the trustee, which compensation shall be paid out of the trust property.

5. This Act shall be deemed to have come into force on the 17th day of June, 1981.

6. The short title of this Act is The Co-operative Health Services of Ontario Assets Protection Act, 1981.

[16]                  The explanatory note accompanying the Act after reference to the concurrent action above mentioned provides as follows:

The Clarkson Company Limited applied for an interlocutory injunction to preserve the funds until the trial of the action. The application and leave to appeal were denied. The Bill preserves the funds until all matters related to the distribution of the assets of Co-operative Health Services of Ontario have been determined.

[17]                  The validity of the Act is impeached on the grounds that the Legislature in purporting to preserve the "trust property" has invaded the exclusive legislative domain in relation to insolvency ascribed to Parliament under s. 91(21) of the British North America Act, 1867: see R.S.C. 1970, App. II.

[18]                  Counsel for the Attorney-General for Ontario whose submissions were adopted by all the respondents except Montreal Trust herein and who appeared pursuant to s. 35 of the Judicature Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 223, submits that the provisions of the Act simply preserve the availability of the trust property for distribution under the Winding-up Act and as such is analogous to noncoercive provincial moratorium legislation. Furthermore, it is submitted that the Act merely preserves the status quo for a fixed period of time. It is argued that it is validly enacted pursuant to s. 92(13) of the British North America Act, 1867.

[19]                  There is no doubt that the Province may in certain circumstances and in proper aspects enact moratorium legislation: see Abitibi Power & Paper Co. Ltd. v. Montreal Trust Co. et al., 1943 CanLII 303 (UK JCPC), [1943] 4 D.L.R. 1 at p. 9, [1943] A.C. 536 at pp. 547-8, [1943] 3 W.W.R. 33. This power, however, is circumscribed within defined limits. In Canadian Bankers' Ass'n et al. v. A.-G. Sask., 1955 CanLII 78 (SCC), [1956] S.C.R. 31 at p. 42, [1955] 5 D.L.R. 736 at p. 752, 35 C.B.R. 135, Mr. Justice Locke stated:

Power to declare a moratorium for the relief of the residents of a province generally in some great emergency, such as existed in 1914 and in the days of the lengthy depression in the thirties, is one thing, but power to intervene between insolvent debtors and their creditors, irrespective of the reasons which have rendered the debtor unable to meet his liabilities, is something entirely different.

It is in light of that caution that one approaches the submission of the intervenor in this case. The sole issue for determination is the true nature and character of the Act. The Act is not legislation of general application. Rather, it appears to be legislation directed solely to the property held by Montreal Trust pursuant to the Agreement. That Agreement was a compromise arrived at between a liquidator under the Winding-up Act and the applicants in the course of the administration of the estate of the insolvent. Neither the authority nor the propriety of the liquidator in arriving at such a compromise has been placed in dispute in these proceedings. Indeed, such arrangements are clearly contemplated under the order of the Master of this Court, dated April 6, 1981: see Record, pp. 37-40.

[20]                  The Agreement contains precise terms under which Montreal Trust is obliged to pay out the proceeds of the sale. That the liquidator, in the course of the administration of the estate, had an interest in the payment of part of those funds notwithstanding its failure to obtain all of them by the various curial proceedings initiated by it, is manifest from the letter of June 15, 1981, to the solicitor for the applicant.

[21]                  The Act by s. 2, in my view, frustrates that Agreement and imposes a freeze on the "trust property" in the hands of Montreal Trust. Indeed, that section appears to deny the liquidator that portion of the "trust property" claimed in the letter of June 15, 1981, until such time as Clarkson applies to the Court for a discharge.

[22]                  Further, s. 4 of the Act appears to empower the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to vary the terms of the Agreement. In so doing the Act authorizes the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to, in effect, rewrite the compromise arrived at by the liquidator in the course of the administration of the estate under the Winding-up Act. By that section, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may replace the trustee, Montreal Trust, direct the interim investment of the trust funds, fix the amount of compensation the trustee may claim, and charge the trust property with that compensation.

[23]                  In my opinion, legislation which so directly interferes with property subject to a compromise arrangement between a liquidator under the Winding-up Act and a third party is not simply legislation analogous to moratorium legislation; but, rather, is legislation which in its true nature and character pre-empts and interferes with the administration of the insolvent's estate by actively assuming the protection of potential estate assets. In so doing, it is no more than a legislative attempt to supplement the enforcement provisions of the federal insolvency legislation.

[24]                  The general scope of the jurisdiction in relation to bankruptcy and insolvency conferred under s. 91(21) is a subject which has been much traversed in the case-law. It is clear that compositions, arrangements and the administration of the insolvent's estate are within that jurisdiction: see Reference Re Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, 1934, 1936 CanLII 35 (SCC), [1936] S.C.R. 384 at pp. 389 and 393, [1936] 3 D.L.R. 610 at pp. 613 and 617, 17 C.B.R. 359, per Duff C.J. [affirmed 1937 CanLII 367 (UK JCPC), [1937] 1 D.L.R. 695, [1937] A.C. 391, [1937] 1 W.W.R. 320]. It is equally clear that the Province cannot step in and assume the protection of an insolvent or his estate: see Canadian Bankers' Ass'n, supra, per Rand J., at p. 47 S.C.R., p. 740 D.L.R.:

If the province steps in and actively assumes the general protection of such a debtor, by whatever means, it is acting in relation to insolvency, and assuming the function of Parliament; it is so far administering, coercively as to creditors, the affairs of insolvent debtors. In this it is frustrating the laws of the Dominion in relation to the same subject.

Furthermore, a provincial Legislature has no mandate to supplement federal insolvency legislation: see Re Wentworth Ins. Co., 1968 CanLII 38 (ON CA), [1968] 2 O.R. 416 at p. 425, 69 D.L.R. (2d) 448 at p. 457, 11 C.B.R. (N.S.) 265, per Laskin J.A.; affirmed 1969 CanLII 18 (SCC), [1969] S.C.R. 779, 6 D.L.R. (3d) 545, 12 C.B.R. (N.S.) 265, sub nom. A.-G. Ont. v. Policyholders of Wentworth Ins. et al.:

It is as incompetent for a provincial Legislature to seek independently to supplement the enforcement of federal insolvency legislation as it is to seek to supplement independently the enforcement of federal criminal legislation.

[25]                  The legislation in question on this application purports to exercise legislative power in relation to and for the purposes of assisting in matters relating to the distribution of the assets of an estate of an insolvent.

[26]                  The Act in assuming to protect potential estate assets and thereby directly frustrating a compromise arrangement negotiated by the liquidator under the Winding-up Act is, in my view, legislation in relation to matters falling directly within the subject of insolvency and is, accordingly, ultra vires. The declaration sought will be granted and the question of law propounded will be answered in accordance with these reasons.

[27]                  Application granted.

The Declaration of Independence The Want, Will, and Hopes of the People

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America

Every American should READ at least once a month.

In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly, all experience hath shewn, that mankind is more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose, obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions, We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

New Hampshire:

Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:

John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:

Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:

Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:

William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:

Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:

Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:

Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:

Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:

George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:

William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:

Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:

Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

The Democrats One Sided Political Resistance or Treasonous Affair?

The political bias liberal mainstream media throughout North America has seen fit not to set off any alarm bells in their endless undemocratic; endless and indeed close to treasonous acts against the duly elected President of the USA and his administration.

The lawless actions of burning police cars, smashing store windows, damaging private and public property by masked malcontent anarchist protesters who blatantly ignored our civil laws and commit criminal acts against mankind, peace and the planet in the name of political resistance that they fictitiously claim to represent, go unchallenged?

When will there be a truly independent public inquiry centred on the actions of these masked protesters and anti-social elements, illegal leakers of national security for political reasons through unnamed sources in a very treasonous meaner be brought before the courts as opposed to kakuro political hearings?  

Hundreds of acts of lawlessness of looting, burning and destruction of private and public property by masked protesters continually rebuffing the civil rights of others in the name of political resistance and free speech and then who later demand safe spaces from their own political rampage against the civil rights of non-protesting and law-abiding citizens who had the common sense to actually vote in the last elections go unchallenged by our so-called elected representatives of the people?

Why have no masked protesters, along with protest leaders from union groups, student groups and their financial backers who play a command role of lawlessness and criminal leadership of the protesters, been convicted or continually and loudly denounced daily by the media and the people's elected representatives and by our elected judges?

When will these representatives of the voters stand up against such deniers of democracy and laws and order be unmasked along with their financiers and political parties and be held accountable and liable for their civil disgraces treasonous crimes against democratic civil societies and mankind?

When will our politicians, judges and the courts be prepared to take on such lawlessness and criminal activities of masked protesters and others who hide behind the free speech mantra of speech for them only with a degree of seriousness or step down and hand over the reins of power to the elected representative of the public who can?

Who are the wire-pullers, politicians, bureaucrats, political parties, financiers and judges that are continually allowing our justice system to be so blindly biased and unbalanced?

Why have no alarm bells sounded or is it purely a one-sided political treasonous affair by insider democrat bureaucrats and technocrats party losers?

Paris Agreement Exposed as Worthless Words and a Fraud & Fake.

Those words were not stated by Donald Trump but rather by James Hansen.

For those who do not know who James Hansen well he was the NASA scientist and father of the theory of manmade global warming! So, you see let’s not blame the Donald President of the USA and non-career politician for having the political courage to call out the Paris accord for the SHAM it is.

Let all these self-serving chicken little environmental activist tree huggers; Hollywood celebrity wannabe elites; the American Civil Liberties Union; the Scientific American propaganda magazine along with the former President B.O., who himself argued that the Paris accord must remain a non-binding agreement because Obama at the time could not get it through his own Democratic Controlled Senate, come up with the one-off and then annual $3 BILLION DOLLARS for the Green Climate Fund as opposed to fraudulently extracting such contributions from American workers, corporations and consumer products.

As reported and written by Lorrie Goldstein; Anthony Furey and Lorne Gunter the Paris accord, deal, agreement and scam was nothing more than a financial gain and economic advantage from and over the United States, Canada, the EU and other governments and their citizens for the governments of China, India and other countries.

President Trump decided on behalf of all legal citizens that once and for all the “United States of America would no longer be playing the role of a sugar daddy” for the world's Green Climate Fund (GFC). 

The GFC and Paris accords both of which are based on a similar claim made by Al Capone that he could make a meagre middle-class income while pocketing millions annually from bootleg liquor through creative accounting!

The Paris accord and green schemes including the GFC are rackets based on “Control versus Freedom. Compulsion versus voluntarism.”

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/06/03/trump-exposes-the-paris-mirage

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/06/03/after-trump-its-time-for-canada-to-rethink-its-destructive-green-agenda-2

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/06/03/the-paris-agreement---apretentious-moralistic-socialist-document

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/06/01/trump-told-the-truth

Reminder: Dems’ Green New Deal Tax Hikes Will Cost American Families Up to $65,000 Per Year

Unfortunately for millions of working families and blue-collar workers, President Biden’s “infrastructure plan” is better understood as $2.3 trillion in new tax hikes and the Green New Deal masquerading as an infrastructure plan.

This isn’t the first time Biden has attempted to push the radical Green New Deal through unrelated Congressional spending.

That’s because, amid a devastating pandemic, Biden and the Democrats are determined to transform the blue-collar jobs economy created by Republican tax reform into an economy that slashes blue-collar paychecks and sends their jobs overseas.

As the Wall Street Journal editorial board put it:

“[President Biden’s] $2.3 trillion infrastructure plan contains enough spending and industrial planning that it amounts to the Green New Deal in disguise.”

KEY TAKEAWAYS:

• Around this time last year, Biden suggested Democrats push for Green New Deal provisions in COVID relief.
• The Green New Deal will cost American families as much as $65,000 per year.
• Experts estimate that the energy mandates alone included in Biden’s tax hikes will cost American households $1,400 per year.

SUBCOMMITTEE:  SELECT REVENUE MEASURES   

Amazing Letter from a US Citizen 2016

November 8 and its aftermath revealed to me that I am just so tired of these democrats and their candlelight vigils against the evil Trump Administration, harassing our electoral college voters and their undisguised contempt for tens of millions of Americans, with no effort to temper their response to the election with humility or empathy.

I can’t be like them, and I don’t want my kids turning into them.

I am tired of their unexamined snobbery and condescension.

I am tired of their name-calling and virtue-signalling as signs of supposedly high intelligence.

I am tired of their trendiness, jumping on every left-liberal bandwagon that comes along (transgender activism, anyone?) and then acting like anyone, not on board is an idiot/hater.

I am tired of their shallowness. It’s hard to have a deep conversation with people who are obsessed with moving their kids’ pawns across the board (grades, sports, college, grad school, career) and, in their spare time, entertaining themselves and taking great vacations.

I am tired of their acceptance of vulgarity and sarcastic irreverence as the cultural ocean in which their kids swim. I like pop culture as much as the next person, but people who would never raise their kids on junk food seem to think nothing of letting then wallow in cultural junk, exposed to nothing ennobling, aspirational, or even earnest.

I am tired of watching them raise clueless kids (see above) who go off to college and within months are convinced they live in  rapey, racist patriarchy; “Make America Great Again” is hate speech; and Black Lives Matter agitators are their brothers-in-arms against White Privilege. If my kids are like that at nineteen, I’ll feel I’ve seriously failed them as a parent. Yet the general sentiment seems to be these are good, liberal kids who may have gotten a bit carried away.

I am tired of their lack of interest in any form of serious morality or self-betterment. These are decent, responsible people, many compassionate by temperament. Yet they seem two-dimensional as if they believe that being a nice, well-socialized person who holds liberal political views is all there is, and there is nothing else to talk about. But there is!

I am tired of being bored and exasperated by everybody. I feel like I have read this book a thousand times, and there are no surprises in it. Down with Trump! Trans Lives Matter! Climate deniers are destroying the planet! No cake, we’re gluten-free!

These are good people in a lot of ways. But there has got to be a better way.

Last Sunday’s sermon mentioned 1 Peter:18-19, “For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors.” 

This may be obvious to you, but secular liberalism does seem empty in some way, despite all the things my educated, middle-class liberals should be grateful for.

If that’s what’s been handed down to me, I want more, especially for my precious kids. I’m trying.

Author Unknown

Collapse of EU Monetary Union Unavoidable

The Euro is simply a house of cards waiting to collapse, IMHO along with that of Professor Otmar Issing, the ECB's first chief economist as stated in the following article by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard.

The European Central Bank is becoming dangerously over-extended and the whole euro project is unworkable in its current form, the founding architect of the monetary union has warned.

"One day, the house of cards will collapse,” said Professor Otmar Issing, the ECB's first chief economist and a towering figure in the construction of the single currency.

Prof Issing said the euro has been betrayed by politics, lamenting that the experiment went wrong from the beginning and has since degenerated into a fiscal free-for-all that once again masks the festering pathologies. And he is factually correct.

“Realistically, it will be a case of muddling through, struggling from one crisis to the next. It is difficult to forecast how long this will continue for, but it cannot go on endlessly," he told the journal Central Banking in a remarkable deconstruction of the project.

The comments are a reminder that the Eurozone has not overcome its structural incoherence. A beguiling combination of cheap oil, a cheap euro, quantitative easing and less fiscal austerity have disguised this, but the short-term effects are already fading.

The regime is almost certain to be tested again in the next global downturn, this time starting with higher levels of debt and unemployment, and greater political fatigue.

Prof Issing lambasted the European Commission as a creature of political forces that have given up trying to enforce the rules in any meaningful way. "The moral hazard is overwhelming," he said.  

The European Central Bank is on a "slippery slope" and has in his view fatally compromised the system by bailing out bankrupt states in palpable violation of the treaties.

"The Stability and Growth Pact has more or less failed. Market discipline is done away with by ECB interventions. So there is no fiscal control mechanism from markets or politics. This has all the elements to bring disaster for monetary union.

"The no-bailout clause is violated every day," he said, dismissing the European Court's approval for bailout measures as simple-minded and ideological.

The ECB has "crossed the Rubicon" and is now in an untenable position, trying to reconcile conflicting roles as banking regulator, Troika enforcer in rescue missions and agent of monetary policy. Its own financial integrity is increasingly in jeopardy.

The central bank already holds over €1 trillion of bonds bought at "artificially low" or negative yields, implying huge paper losses once interest rates rise again. "An exit from the QE policy is more and more difficult, as the consequences potentially could be disastrous," he said.

"The decline in the quality of eligible collateral is a grave problem. The ECB is now buying corporate bonds that are close to junk, and the haircuts can barely deal with a one-notch credit downgrade. The reputational risk of such actions by a central bank would have been unthinkable in the past," he said.

Cloaking it all is obfuscation, political mendacity and endemic denial.  Leaders of the heavily indebted states have misled their voters with soothing bromides, falsely suggesting that some form of fiscal union or debt mutualisation is just around the corner.

Yet there is no chance of political union or the creation of an EU treasury in the foreseeable future, which would, in any case, require a sweeping change to the German constitution - an impossible proposition in the current political climate. 

The European project must, therefore, function as a union of sovereign states, or fail.

Prof Issing slammed the first Greek rescue in 2010 as little more than a bailout for German and French banks, insisting that it would have been far better to eject Greece from the euro as a salutary lesson for all. The Greeks should have been offered generous support, but only after it had restored exchange rate viability by returning to the drachma.

His critique will exasperate those at the ECB and the International Monetary Fund who inherited the crisis and had to deal with a fast-moving and terrifying situation.

The fear was a chain-reaction reaching Spain and Italy, detonating an uncontrollable financial collapse. This nearly happened on two occasions and remained a risk until Berlin switched tack and agreed to let the ECB shore up the Spanish and Italian debt markets in 2012.

Many would say the crisis mushroomed precisely because the ECB was unable to act as a lender-of-last-resort. Prof Issing and others from the Bundesbank were chiefly responsible for this design flaw.

Jacques Delors, the euro's "political" founding father, issued his own candid post-mortem last month on the failings of EMU but disagrees starkly with Prof Issing about the nature of the problem.

His foundation calls for a supranational economic government with debt pooling and an EU treasury, as well as expansionary policies to break out of the "vicious circle" and prevent a second Lost Decade.

"It is essential and urgent: at some point in the future, Europe will be hit by a new economic crisis. We do not know whether this will be in six weeks, six months or six years. But in its current set-up the euro is unlikely to survive that coming crisis," said the Delors report.

Prof Issing is not a German nationalist. He is open to the idea of a genuine United States of Europe built on proper foundations, but has warned repeatedly against trying to force the pace of integration, or to achieve federalism "by the back door".

He decries the latest EU plan for a "fiscal entity" in the Five Presidents' Report, fearing that such move would lead to a rogue plenipotentiary with unbridled powers over sensitive issues of national life, beyond democratic accountability.

Such a system would erode the budgetary sovereignty of the member states and violate the principle of no taxation without representation, forgetting the lessons of the English Civil War and the American Revolution.

Prof Issing said the venture began to go off the rails immediately, though the structural damage was disguised by the financial boom. "There was no speed-up of convergence after 1999 – rather, the opposite. From day one, quite a number of countries started working in the wrong direction."

A string of states let rip with wage rises, brushing aside warnings that this would prove fatal in an irrevocable currency union. "During the first eight years, unit labour costs in Portugal rose by 30pc versus Germany. In the past, the escudo would have devalued by 30pc, and things more or less would be back to where they were."

"Quite a few countries – including Ireland, Italy and Greece – behaved as though they could still devalue their currencies," he said.

The elemental problem is that once a high-debt state has lost 30pc in competitiveness within a fixed exchange system, it is almost impossible to claw back the ground in the sort of deflationary world we face today.

It has become a trap. The whole Eurozone structure has acquired a contractionary bias. The deflation is now self-fulling. 

Prof Issing's purist German ideology has no compelling answer to this.

Source @http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/16/euro-house-of-cards-to-collapse-warns-ecb-prophet/

Should Christians Vote for Trump?

Trump’s behaviour is odious, but Clinton has a deplorable basketful of deal-breakers, by ERIC METAXAS.   

This question should hardly require an essay, but let’s face it: We’re living in strange times. America is in trouble.

Over this past year, many of Donald Trump’s comments have made me almost literally hopping mad. The hot-mic comments from 2005 are especially horrifying. Can there be any question we should denounce them with flailing arms and screeching volume? I must not hang out in the right locker rooms, because if anyone I know said such things I might assault him physically (and repent later). So yes, many see these comments as a deal-breaker.

But we have a very knotty and larger problem. What if the other candidate also has deal breakers? Even a whole deplorable basketful? Suddenly things become horribly awkward. Would God want me simply not to vote? Is that a serious option?

What if not pulling the lever for Mr. Trump effectively means electing someone who has actively enabled sexual predation in her husband before—and while—he was president? Won’t God hold me responsible for that? What if she defended a man who raped a 12-year-old and in recalling the case laughed about getting away with it? Will I be excused from letting this person become president? What if she used her position as secretary of state to funnel hundreds of millions into her own foundation, much of it from nations that treat women and gay people worse than dogs? Since these things are true, can I escape responsibility for them by simply not voting?

Many say they won’t vote because choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. But this is sophistry. Neither candidate is pure evil. They are human beings. We cannot escape the uncomfortable obligation to soberly choose between them. Not voting—or voting for a third candidate who cannot win—is a rationalization designed more than anything to assuage our consciences. Yet people in America and abroad depend on voters to make this very difficult choice.

Children in the Middle East are forced to watch their fathers drowned in cages by ISIS. Kids in inner-city America are condemned to lives of poverty, hopelessness and increasing violence. Shall we sit on our hands and simply trust “the least of these” to God, as though that were our only option? Don’t we have an obligation to them?

Two heroes about whom I’ve written faced similar difficulties. William Wilberforce, who ended the slave trade in the British Empire, often worked with other parliamentarians he knew to be vile and immoral in their personal lives.

Why did he? First, because as a sincere Christian he knew he must extend grace and forgiveness to others since he desperately needed them himself. Second, because he knew the main issue was not his moral purity, nor the moral impurity of his colleagues, but rather the injustices and horrors suffered by the African slaves whose cause he championed. He knew that before God his first obligation was to them, and he must do what he could to help them.

The anti-Nazi martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer also did things most Christians of his day were disgusted by. He most infamously joined a plot to kill the head of his government. He was horrified by it, but he did it nonetheless because he knew that to stay “morally pure” would allow the murder of millions to continue. Doing nothing or merely “praying” was not an option. He understood that God was merciful and that even if his actions were wrong, God saw his heart and could forgive him. But he knew he must act.

Wilberforce and Bonhoeffer knew it was an audience of One to whom they would ultimately answer. And He asks, “What did you do to the least of these?”

It’s a fact that if Hillary Clinton is elected, the country’s chance to have a Supreme Court that values the Constitution—and the genuine liberty and self-government for which millions have died—is gone. Not for four years, or eight, but forever. Many say Mr. Trump can’t be trusted to deliver on this score, but Mrs. Clinton certainly can be trusted in the opposite direction. For our kids and grandkids, are we not obliged to take our best shot at this? Shall we sit on our hands and refuse to choose?                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

If imperiously flouting the rules by having a private server endangered American lives and secrets and may lead to more deaths if she cynically deleted thousands of emails, and if her foreign-policy judgment led to the rise of Islamic State, won’t refuse to vote to make me responsible for those suffering as a result of these things? How do I squirm out of this horrific conundrum? It’s unavoidable: We who can vote must answer to God for these people, whom He loves. We are indeed our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers.

We would be responsible for passively electing someone who champions the abomination of partial-birth abortion, someone who is celebrated by an organization that sells baby parts. We already live in a country where judges force bakers, florists and photographers to violate their consciences and faith—and Mrs. Clinton has zealously ratified this. If we believe this ends with bakers and photographers, we are horribly mistaken. No matter your faith or lack of faith, this statist view of America will dramatically affect you and your children.

For many of us, this is very painful, pulling the lever for someone many think odious. But please consider this: A vote for Donald Trump is not necessarily a vote for Donald Trump himself. It is a vote for those who will be affected by the results of this election. Not to vote is to vote. God will not hold us guiltless.

Mr. Metaxas, host of the nationally syndicated “Eric Metaxas Show,” is the author of “If You Can Keep It: The Forgotten Promise of American Liberty” (Viking, 2016).